Men should be offended…

I don’t know who wrote this, so I can’t thank them personally, but I can at least help spread their words.

Men should be offended when someone claims that women should prevent rape by not wearing certain things or not going certain places or not acting in a certain way. That line of thinking presumes that you are incapable of control. That you are so base and uncivilized that it takes extraordinary effort for you to walk down the street without raping someone. That you require a certain dress code be maintained, that certain behaviors be employed so that maybe today, just maybe, you won’t rape someone.

It presumes that your natural state is rapist.
—Unknown

If this speaks to you, feel free to share it.
If you want to speak to me, feel free to do that too.

No, by extension of this logic, you should be offended when it is suggested that people ________________ in order to keep you and your kind from doing horrible things.

Fat doesn’t hold you down and force itself down your throat.
Your couch doesn’t magically grab ahold of you and keep you from going to work.
People don’t shame robbery victims, drag their names through the courts, and try to get a lighter sentence because they left their valuables exposed so it wasn’t really theft.

Men should be offended when someone blames women’s clothing for the criminal actions of another man.

You don’t leave the door unlocked just because no one has the right to walk in. Do we? Of course there is a dress code, not only for women but also for men. A dress code that makes oneself and the ones around comfortable.

There is nothing I can do, nowhere I can go, that will keep me safe – if an individual larger and stronger than myself chooses to do me harm. Whether the weapon is a gun, a knife, or a … body part.

Rape is not about sex. Rape is about power and control. Rape of the elderly or crippled or children is not about provocative behaviors.The only difference between being shot, stabbed, or raped – is the choice of weapon.

*****
@csrowan: Thank you for this post. If I never again hear – “Well, look at the way she was dressed/ behaving. She was just asking for it.” – I will die a happy woman.

~No one forces anyone to break a car window and take your valuables, whether in plain sight or not – it’s a personal choice.

~No one forces a man to rape another human being, whether she’s pretty or dressed attractively or … breathing – it’s a personal choice. If you are not offended by being lumped in with those who do make that choice – simply because you urinate standing up – you may have more to worry about than fried foods.

I strongly disagree. Just the way that it is wrong to shift the blame from the perpetrator to the victim, similarly it is wrong to absolve the victim of the responsibility.

If you leave your front door open and your furniture scattered on the front yard, you run a much higher risk of being robbed. If you walk through a dangerous neighborhood wearing flashy jewelry and money sticking out of every pocket, you run a much high risk of being mugged.
I’m not saying that if you lock your front door, you will never ever be robbed. A determined thief will manage to find a way past that flimsy lock. But locking the door deters those undetermined people who might become determined ones if they see “an easy opportunity” or “something valuable enough”. By acting sensibly in these situations and not giving others the chance to notice “an easy opportunity” or “something valuable enough”, even though you don’t make yourself immune to crime, you will MAKE IT MUCH LESS LIKELY that you are robbed. I’m sure everyone agrees on this as this is something we see everyday.

Rape may not ALWAYS be about sex but I don’t think you can say that it NEVER is. In fact, I’ll hazard a guess and say that more often than not, it is (please correct me with proper evidence if I am wrong). As I see it, the sequence of events leading to rape is:
1. He notices a desirable woman. She might be a coworker who flirts a lot or a random woman dressing provocatively that catches his eye.
2. He notices that she is vulnerable at some point of time (e.g. walks home alone)
3. He realizes that there is a good chance that he can make his move and then get away without repercussions.

At this point, the only thing holding him back are his own ideas of “right and wrong”. And if you are wise, you would not put all of your faith in the morality of an unknown individual.

Instead what you would do is to dress properly so as to not pop up in his eyes as something desirable. You would be sure to not stay out in dangerous areas or walk out alone. You’d keep to a group of friends or relatives.

In short, you would DRESS and ACT in a certain way to minimize your chances of being raped.

And that is what the original post is calling completely unnecessary. With which I strongly disagree.

This is absolutely ridiculous. You’re assuming that rape only happens when someone pounces on a woman from a dark alleyway, when, in fact, rape can (and most often does) happen in the context of acquaintanceship or even relationships. Maybe it’s silly for me to leave my furniture scattered in the yard where someone can take it, but is it my fault if one of my close friends whom I’ve welcomed into my home, steals a vase while I’m not looking? If I am forced to live in fear, and never wear the clothing I want to or never invite friends into my home, that is not solving any problems. It’s merely avoiding the problem and allowing the messed up system in which we live to continue on.

Hey there, I’m the person responsible for this quote. Here’s a screencap from when I posted it on facebook August 6th, you won’t see it anywhere before that date :) http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcqepoxQ391qlfw9do1_1280.png If you want to give me credit, please feel free to use my tumblr which is spiralsly.tumblr.com Thanks for spreading the word, and I’m glad you agree!

People do make these claims. They justify rape, saying it was the woman’s fault for wearing a revealing outfit, for going to a singles bar and talking to men, for not saying ‘no’ loudly enough.

And it’s wrong. The only person at fault for rape is the rapist.

Is the quote perfect? Does it accurately represent every rape? Is it impossible to pick apart? No.

Does it reflect an unfortunate reality? Yes.

“Anytime someone asks what a rape victim was wearing, what they were drinking, what they were doing where the rape happened, you’re setting up a situation in which the rape becomes the victim’s fault and not the fault of the actual perpetrator. You know, the rapist.”http://www.polimicks.com/?p=618

“To too many people, “rape” and “rape victim” are not accurate descriptors but political shorthand—the product of an overblown, politically correct interpretation of sex. As Tennessee Senator Douglas Henry said in 2008, “Rape, ladies and gentlemen, is not today what rape was. Rape, when I was learning these things, was the violation of a chaste woman, against her will, by some party not her spouse.”

If you’re married, you’ve contractually agreed to be available for sex whether or not you want to. If you’re a woman of color, you must be a liar. If you don’t have as much money as your attacker, you’re just looking for a payday. If you’re in college, you shouldn’t want to ruin your poor young rapist’s life. If you’re a sex worker, it wasn’t rape it was just “theft of services.” If you said yes at first but changed your mind, tough luck. If you’ve had sex before, you must say yes to everyone. If you were drinking you should have known better. If you were wearing a short skirt what did you expect?

The definition of who is a rape victim has been whittled down by racism, misogyny, classism and the pervasive wink-wink-nudge-nudge belief that all women really want to be forced anyway. The assumption is that women are, by default, desirous of sex unless they explicitly state otherwise. And women don’t just have to prove that we said no, but that we screamed it.”http://www.thenation.com/blog/170767/ending-rape-illiteracy

Even the attitudes presented in the comments here sicken me. There is never, ever, ever any excuse for raping someone. Rape is rape. If you walked into a village in Africa or some Islands where women have a radically different dress code, and started assaulting people just because their chests are showing, it would still be every bit just as bad.

Stop trying to find reasons that it should be ‘lesser’ in certain circumstances. I don’t care if a woman is walking down the street by herself naked. Whilst it’s inappropriate on her behalf, no one should feel like they might be robbed, assaulted or raped.

What about all the drunken male idiots that get smashed, pass out in parks, wave their bits around. Do they deserve to be raped? Do you think they’d behave that way if they thought it was a risk?

This logic is just a bit flawed in my opinion – it’s just too extreme. It’s never been that a man’s natural mindset is rapist; a man’s natural mindset is a man. It is a subset of men that think this way, that have this lack of respect for women. It is because of this group – not men in general – that women are at risk.

For example, consider two other subsets of men that we know exist. First, the common thief. Second. the wild, drunk football fan. Due to the fact that both groups exist, we are cautious of the risks that we know result from interacting in certain ways with that group. In recognition of thieves, we lock our doors and windows. In recognition of drunk football fans, we think twice before bashing their team.

Now, you’re going to have the extreme versions of people – thieves that won’t be stopped by locks and drunk football fans that won’t be stopped even though the odds are six-on-one. You also have extreme rapists that ‘no’ is never going to be ‘no’ – that group is long, long gone. However, that’s not enough to not mitigate the risk of the ‘on the edge’ group.

The man is 110% at fault in the case of rape – we have been clear on that. However, it is illogical and irrational for women to ignore the fact that this subset of men exists and not work to mitigate the risk because of it.

Now, rape works both ways – man to woman, woman to man – so this message is for both of you. Women, be careful of not just your interactions with men but also your girlfriends’. Men, be cautious of your brothers’ interactions with women – hold each other to that standard. With both groups working on this, we have a solid chance of keeping each other safe.

I have a fundamental disagreement with the statement above, because you’re combining two concepts. Firstly, actions that can be used to reduce the chance of occurance of rape and second, where the blame for the crime really lies.

In any crime, the blame cannot fall upon the victim because the laws of the land dictate what a person can and cannot do. There is no victim of a crime who was asking for it.

However, you can take actions that reduce your risk of being a victim. For rape specifically, walking with multiple people vs by yourself will reduce the chance of you becoming a victim. If you walk down a well lit street, you’re less likely to become a victim then if you walk down a dark and secluded path.

These aren’t radical ideas here…

====================================================

There’s a couple of myths here that need to be dispelled as well.

1) The concept that “A victims attractiveness does not play a role in rape at all.” is demonstratably false. If we look Jeffrey Dahmer, he specifically said that he chose his victims based exclusively on how they looked. If their body type pleased him. He’d go on to drug their drinks and rape them. So we have real rapists saying that they chose victims based on how they looked.

2) That there is this conspiracy to keep women down when they claim rape. It’s not that at all. It’s that the accuser has the burden of proof, regardless of crime. Rape, in it’s simplest form is a question about consent. In some rape cases, consent can easily be determined, for example, a young girl walking down the road and is abducted, consent was not given. In other cases, it cannot. The author provides some really good examples of where consent cannot be easily determined.

– If you’re married, you’ve contractually agreed to be available for sex whether or not you want to.
Not correct, if you’re married, you’re in a relationship and have presumably had sex in the past. Issues of consent are not clear cut and easy to prove. Therefore it’s much harder to prove that a rape had occured.

– If you’re a woman of color, you must be a liar.
This comes down to racism, which isn’t a woman only issue. I am in complete agreement that there are racial stereotypes and people do in fact side with their race more often then other races.

– If you don’t have as much money as your attacker, you’re just looking for a payday.
This typically isn’t a rule as it’s too broad. Is a 10 year old girl looking for a payday. She meets your requirements. Is a high school girl? College girl? These women don’t have much money. For your rule to be accurate, there would have to be a mass conspiracy to dismiss rape for most women age groups 1 – 24 assaulted by men who are well to do. I don’t think that’s the case.

– If you’re in college, you shouldn’t want to ruin your poor young rapist’s life.
Not sure what even this is. Are you implying that a rape victim would be brow beaten into dropping her charges? If so, by whom and do you have an example of this?

– If you’re a sex worker, it wasn’t rape it was just “theft of services.”
I don’t think that’s correct. It comes down to the issue of consent. If you’re being paid for sex, it’s not easy to determine if you consented or not. In such a case, the prosecution would have to prove that it was a rape.

– If you said yes at first but changed your mind, tough luck.
Again, to be convicted of rape you have to prove that consent was given then retracted. Given that sex is between two people and usually private, how would you propose to do that?

– If you’ve had sex before, you must say yes to everyone.
What? Wives cannot be raped now? Are you just shooting from the hip?

– If you were drinking you should have known better.
You state these rules as if they’re absolute. They’re not. A drunk woman at her home passed out can still be raped by a man who broke into her house. Consent is clearly not given then.

– If you were wearing a short skirt what did you expect?
Show me a case in the last, let’s say 50 years where that was a viable reason to dismiss a case.

====================================================

To summarize, women are never at fault when they are raped. I’ll say it again so there is no confusion. A woman is never responsible for being raped.

However, there are actions that a woman can take to reduce the chance that she is raped. Being attentive and alert will prevent her from being raped. Being in a group will reduce her chance of being raped. Walking down a well lit street will reduce it too.

Just like how a child not talking to strangers, not accepting bribes and not eating candy from strangers will prevent them from being victims of assaults as well. No one would blame the child for being a victim.

I’ll say it again. “A person who blames a woman for a rape is always wrong. A person who says a woman may have increased her chances of being a rape victim could be correct.”

“The man is 110% at fault in the case of rape – we have been clear on that. However, it is illogical and irrational for women to ignore the fact that this subset of men exists and not work to mitigate the risk because of it.”

How is that no different from your comment? Or were you referring to the original post way, way above? :D

We live in a society where women are afraid to come forward after being raped. The majority of rapists are friends, family, and dates. These are people they know. Some of whom might hurt them if they come forward. Some of whom no-one will believe would do such a thing.

We live in a society where some women believe that they are at fault for leading a man on by wearing sexy clothing or even going out on a date and if you get him worked up, even if you say no, it’s still your fault. So they are afraid to come forward. Afraid they will be blamed for what was done to them.

We have people perpetuating these falsehoods, loudly and vocally. We have members of our government talking about ‘legitimate’ rape. As if there are instances when having sex with someone against their will isn’t actually rape!

Their names gets dragged through the news. They’re accused of lying by other people in their family. Their choices in clothing are picked apart by people who weren’t even there. If it was date rape, they are quizzed and poked and prodded to find out if their actions implied sexuality even if their mouths said ‘no’.

—–

When taken in context, this quote isn’t about women failing to take adequate precautions. Rape happens whether or not a woman is covered up. Rape happens to women in burkas. Rape happens in alleyways and living rooms. Rape happens to women who kiss and fondle their dates, and it happens to women who don’t.

It’s about a culture where the rape victims are made to feel like they are the ones who did something wrong. As long as we continue to imply that they brought it on themselves, we’re implying that men can’t control themselves.

No, it does not presume that *I* am a rapist. It presumes that SOMEONE is. And someone is. When someone says “Some people are rapists” why do you hear “YOU are a rapist” or “ALL MEN are naturally rapists”?

Telling people to protect themselves is not blaming them for the crime. It’s an attempt to prevent it.

Some people are scum. That’s not going to change. So you have to protect yourself.

When I say, “Lock your doors” I am not saying “All people are burglars,” I am saying that burglars do exist. And I’m not blaming you for the burglary.

@csrowan: The first few lines seem to suggest that women preventing rape by taking precautions is a concept that should be considered offensive by men. That is the point of disagreement. It is not an offensive concept, in fact it is downright sensible.
None of us are giving any leeway to the rapist. If somebody rapes a burqa clad woman or a naked one, the rapist is equally to blame in both conditions. His blame is not lessened by the attire of the woman.

The blame that comes on the woman is for not taking the proper precautions. It is not signifying that her nudity makes the rapist’s crime any less. It just points her out as having been careless and putting herself at risk.

Big thanks to wheeler32, Rundvelt and Ignatz. You echoed my point of view much better than I did.

Not ***all*** men are incapable of controlling themselves in the presence of a scantily-clad woman. Many men, however, ARE incapable, or at best unwilling, to do so. And as long as there are that many men out there who can’t seem to control themselves, I think us women are better off assuming any man we meet might be one of those.
I don’t know what the percentage is, but in my personal experience it’s at least half. And if that offends anyone, I’m sorry, but it’s the truth.

Not at all. The context is contained within the poster fully. The poster is logically inconsistent.

The poster isn’t logically consistent.

Let’s break it down…

“Men should be offended when someone claims that women should prevent rape by not wearing certain things, or not going certain places, or not acting in a certain way.

That line of thinking presumes that you are incapable of control. That you are so base and uncivilized that it takes extraordinary effort for you to walk down the street without raping someone.

That you require a certain dress code be maintained, that certain behaviours be employed so that maybe today, just maybe, you won’t rape someone.

It presumes your natural state is rapist.”

You place your post under “Reasoning” and “Logic”, let’s talk about it and break it down.

We have two groups on this planet. Men and men who rape. Because men who rape is a subset of men, it follows that it must be equal to or smaller then the group of men. Knowing that I have never raped anyone, I now can conclude that the group Men > Men who Rape.

Now, when we look at the poster, we see that Men as the group should be offended when someone claims that women should prevent rape by taking different actions. Because it presumes that you are incapable of control.

Because there are men who are not rapists as shown above, there must be some men who are not offended by claims of rape prevention because they do not share the qualities of men who are rapists. If they did, they’d be men who are rapists.

So, the poster cannot logically aimed at the situation that some men are rapists and some are not. Otherwise, it’d say “Some men should be offended.”

Likewise, if no men raped, this poster wouldn’t be applicable either, because no situation would come up.

So, if the poster doesn’t work for no men being rapists and it doesn’t work that some men are rapists, the only other valid conclusion is that the poster is intended to argue that all men are rapists.

And that’s the problem with the poster. I’m generally pro-feminist, but it seems like there are tons of people who just post poorly thought out and dogmatic comments because they agree with it. That’s not how you win people over to your side. When you say something, it shoudl be logically consistent and evident.

Do you know what the worst thing for a good idea is? To be asserted strongly as dogma.

I think that the key word here is “prevent”. I think that the notion that women can prevent rape but not wearing certain things, etc is indeed offensive and does imply that men cannot control themselves and are all potential rapists. I see nothing wrong or offensive in advice to take precautions to minimise the chances of rape, no more offensive than advice to mitigate any other risk.

Rape is not about sexual attraction. It is about power.
Men, boys and girls get raped also and women commit rape. I have yet to hear anyone say, “ That guy deserved to get raped. He shouldn’t have been walking around with his shirt open” or “ It’s his own fault for committing a crime and going to jail. He should have known that he’d get raped in jail” or “That choirboy was asking for it. Those short trousers are just too sexy”. Yet we read this all the time on FB etc. “The slut was asking for it”, “It’s her own fault for getting drunk” etc. Unfortunately, this kind of thinking is not restricted to men. We get it from both sexes of all age. This is what I understand to be a manifestation of rape culture.

So, yes men should be offended, everyone should be offended. I don’t think anyone other than a very radical feminist would claim that all men are rapists. It’s time to put an end to “slut shaming” and victim blaming by challenging it at every opportunity and education at every level of society. It isn’t going to go away by itself and arguing over semantics isn’t going to do it.

> I think that the key word here is “prevent”. I think that the notion that women can prevent rape but not wearing certain things, etc is indeed offensive and does imply that men cannot control themselves and are all potential rapists.

News flash, not all men are rapists. I’m not a rapist. As such, when someone suggests that some rapists target women because of their attire, the fact that they walk alone on a dark street or are drunk, that has 0 impact on me, because those are not motivations for me to rape.

So, talking about the poster, either the descriptions of rape are accurate in which case I should not be offended because I’m not a rapist and not motivated by them, or the descriptions of motivations for rape are false, and they’re still not applicable to me and I’m not offended.

The poster isn’t logical. It doesn’t make sense.

> Rape is not about sexual attraction. It is about power.

This is a total falsehood. Perhaps you have heard of a guy named Jeffrey Dahmer. He’s one of the few convicts who was a rapist and gave an interview on TV. Here he is talking about his targeting of victims… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPMBfX7D4WU. Specifically 12:40 to 13:56. He specifically says “I selected people based on looks.”

Now, you want to say “but he’s crazy”, fine, I get that, but it only takes one case to disprove a rule. And I think that overall, this “rapists don’t select based on sexual attraction” is a myth designed to prop up some of the dogmatic claims of feminism. Otherwise, why would such misinformation exist?

> Men, boys and girls get raped also and women commit rape. I have yet to hear anyone say, “ That guy deserved to get raped. He shouldn’t have been walking around with his shirt open” or “ It’s his own fault for committing a crime and going to jail. He should have known that he’d get raped in jail” or “That choirboy was asking for it. Those short trousers are just too sexy”. Yet we read this all the time on FB etc. “The slut was asking for it”, “It’s her own fault for getting drunk” etc. Unfortunately, this kind of thinking is not restricted to men. We get it from both sexes of all age. This is what I understand to be a manifestation of rape culture.

I don’t think many people say this, mainly because it’s stupid beyond belief. I think a lot of people mistake the difference between saying “this is how you make yourself less of a target for rape” vs. “you did this, it’s your own damn fault”. And I think that’s why people reference this so much.

I mean, would you claim that telling children “Don’t get into the car of a stranger.” is blaming children? Sometimes it’s just good advice to keep you safe.

> So, yes men should be offended, everyone should be offended. I don’t think anyone other than a very radical feminist would claim that all men are rapists. It’s time to put an end to “slut shaming” and victim blaming by challenging it at every opportunity and education at every level of society. It isn’t going to go away by itself and arguing over semantics isn’t going to do it.

This isn’t about semantics. This is about fundamental logic. If you don’t understand the problem fully, how can you properly address it. Or more to the point, if you have a really good idea, like some of the points of feminism, do you really want them to be misapplied and discarded because of false information?

Rapists do select women and men based on how they look. They do target women that are alone and they do target women that may be somewhat incapacitated. Is it the woman’s fault? No. Did she increase her odds of being a victim? Yes.

That’s not blame, that’s simply examining what trends occur in crime and learning to avoid situations that favour the criminal.

> NO blame falls on a [raped] woman for having been “careless” in her dress, so long as men CAN dress carelessly and remain invulnerable. We need to strive to progress beyond double-standards!

Conclusions on blame are not based on what “the other side gets away with.” That’s just nonsense.

> Mentioning a [raped] woman’s “carelessness” in a thread about rape treads on being insensitive.

Oh no, we can’t be insensitive. What will the world come to?

> Do you delight in playing with dangerous ideas?

I think the only really important questions are the ones that deal with dangerous ones. I mean, you can choose to live your life asking “how does that oatmeal taste?” I prefer to ask questions like “Why is society like this.”

It’s the dangerous ideas that prove to be true that are the most interesting. Because dangerous ideas that are true end up with signifigant consequences That’s interesting. That’s worth learning about.

No, that’s not the point of the poster. If that wa the point of the poster, it’d say “Imagine a world without crime”. Because guess what, women can rape women too.

> I lock my doors because I don’t want to get robbed – but it SHOULD NOT BE that way
>I wear conservative clothes because I don’t want to get raped – but it SHOULD NOT BE that way

It’s a reality. We live in a world with good people and we live in a world with bad people. The bad people will try and harm people for their benefit. This isn’t going to change anytime in the near future.

> Imagine a world where we could all live without fear. And unless we all change our mindsets…it’s not going to begin to be possible.

People’s mindsets aren’t going to change it. Do you really think that the criminal doesn’t know robbing/raping/murder is wrong? He/She does it because they don’t care about others and only with the benefit that they are given.

My point is this. How can anyone take the ideals of feminism seriously when illogical crap like this is put foward? How is this any different then creationists saying that evolution isn’t true. Or how is this any different then when 9-11 truthers put out bad arguments trying to hold up their claims.

Things that are obviously not true, even if they try to get a good message across hurt the overall message, because more people are dismissive of future claims that are made.

That sounds very cynical and fatalistic. And, of course it’s about mindset change. Nothing’s going to change unless people start thinking differently. And mindsets do change – I know that. I’m a coach. People change their mindsets – when it matters to them.

I don’t know much about criminal psychology but no, I don’t think the people who commit crime think they’re doing something wrong. They do it usually because they either feel wronged by the society – in which case they feel they are right to ‘fight back’. Or they feel the other(s) is wrong and therefore want to teach them a lesson.

In a recent gang rape case here, the rapists said that they had done it to teach the victim the lesson (that she shouldn’t be out with a guy – her friend – alone)

This case illustrates my point of why mindsets need to change (please read it – so important for everyone to start listening):

In my own house, today my mother in law told my nanny that she had fired her male-servant because of her (he had gone up to the nanny’s bed in the middle of the night – nanny woke up and started shouting so he left). NO – we fired him because of his behaviour, NOT because of the nanny.

> I don’t know much about criminal psychology but no, I don’t think the people who commit crime think they’re doing something wrong. They do it usually because they either feel wronged by the society – in which case they feel they are right to ‘fight back’. Or they feel the other(s) is wrong and therefore want to teach them a lesson.

This is complete and utter nonsense.

Are you to tell me that child rapists take the actions they do because they need to fight back against society? No. The reason child rapists do what they do is because they value their desired above the rights or security of person that they’re going to assault. And they know it’s wrong.

What about serial killers? Are they so deluded that they don’t know killing is wrong? Even people like Jeffrey Dahmer knows what he did was wrong, even when he was doing it. The reality is that he simply did not care about what society said about such things. He valued his desires over the rights of another individual.

There will always be people who are evil, just like how there will always be people who are good.

> In a recent gang rape case here, the rapists said that they had done it to teach the victim the lesson (that she shouldn’t be out with a guy – her friend – alone)

> This case illustrates my point of why mindsets need to change (please read it – so important for everyone to start listening):

A couple of things.

Firstly, you’re trying to paint all crime (previous paragraph) with a very specific case. That simply doesn’t work. What’s motivation for one person will not be motivation for another. As such, the reason behind the crime will be different and affected by different things.

Secondly, you can’t take the rationale behind a crime as stated by the criminal as fact. People tend to try and find any sort of excuse for their actions. Not to mention, people would rather say something stupid and illogical like “we were teaching her a lesson” rather then “I’m a debased person who really didn’t care about her, I wanted to get off”. I mean, if you’re trying to get the least amount of prison time, which of the two would you say?

I read it. The man that sexually assaulted you (a little harsh, but let’s go with it), valued his desire to touch you over your right not to be touched.

The take away message here is that sometimes people will do scuzzy and horrible things to others because they value their own pleasure or needs over the rights of others.

> In my own house, today my mother in law told my nanny that she had fired her male-servant because of her (he had gone up to the nanny’s bed in the middle of the night – nanny woke up and started shouting so he left). NO – we fired him because of his behaviour, NOT because of the nanny.

It seems that you’re not thinking about crime as a whole, but rather trying to take your experiences and then transposing them onto the entire problem of crime.

I have a question though. The male servant that invaded the nanny’s privacy. Do you think he was socially conditioned to think that was correct? Or do you think he was a criminal? If he had violently raped her that night, would you say that he’d been conditioned to think that action wasn’t wrong?

It sounds like the mindsets you’re seeking to change are those of women. I mean, my mindset cannot affect a person’s confidence, guiltlessness or bravery.

What I think you propose is a double edged sword. Either women are equal to men or they’re not. Suggesting that women need men to think a certain way so that they can be confident and the like is actually saying that women are beholden unto men. That their actions are dependant upon the actions of men.

I don’t think that’s valid. I know many women who are confident and brave and don’t require a global mindset to go in their favour to speak out and be strong.

My opposition to this poster is that it’s firstly illogical, for the reasons I outline above. The second reaon I opposed this poster is that it attempts to label men as rapists. Lastly, I oppose this poster because feminism does have some valid points, and those get lost when idiotic propaganda pieces like this come out. People react by immediately discrediting anything associated with it.

If you want to change mindsets, do so with well reasoned argument. Not by trying to villify a group of people in quite possibly the stupidest way possible.

Let me quickly respond to this…as obviously we see things (and this poster) very differently.

I don’t think the point of the poster is to say all men are rapists at all.

A woman I know said, as she was watching a program on the tv, ‘of course she’ll get raped if she wears those kind of clothes’. I think such statements send out subliminal messages (to young, impressionable minds) that such a woman is asking for it / it’s ok to rape her. And I think that’s the point of the poster – that people need to stop making such comments because all they do is a) send these messages out and b) makes victims feel guilty.

I have a year and a half old son and I hope he learns (he’d better) that even if a woman is standing naked no one has a right to rape her.

> I don’t think the point of the poster is to say all men are rapists at all.

Then you’re not rationally looking at the poster. It says “Men should be offended when someone suggests a woman should prevent rape by: A, B, C. That line of thinking presumes that you are incapable of control.”

Let me break it down really simply, as you may have missed the point I’m trying to make.

I’m going to use two groups for this example:

Group 1: Men who murder others.
Group 2: Men who do not murder.

Obviously, Group 1 + Group 2 = All men. Because either men are murderers or they are not.

Now, if I’m in Group 2, that is to say, Men who do not murder, I cannot be offended by claims made against Group 1, namely the murderers because I do not belong to that group. As I am not a murderer.

So, with that in mind, let’s paraphrase the poster…

“Men should be offended when somoene claims that people should prevent murder by:
– Not walking down dark alleys.
– Not flashing huge amounts of cash in a crime riddled area.
– Not picking fights with gang members.

That line of thinking presumes that you’re incapable of control.”

Have you caught the problem yet? How is it that comments on how Group 1 acts is a commentary on how Group 2 acts? The answer is that it’s not.

As such, I cannot be offended for the reasons listed in the poster because they don’t make sense. They’re iditotic.

> A woman I know said, as she was watching a program on the tv, ‘of course she’ll get raped if she wears those kind of clothes’.

First of all, you have to ask yourself “Did she hear the person right?” Second of all, yes, there are certain circumstances that will increase the likelyhood of you being a rape victim, just like there are circumstances that will increase the likelyhood of you being a murder victim.

It’s not the fault of the victim ever, but your actions do have an effect of whether you’ll be an easy mark or someone the rapist doesn’t attack.

For example, walking down a well lit street with lots of foot traffic reduces your chances of being:

– Raped, mugged, murdered, abducted and a slew of others. It can increase your chance of being pickpocketed though!

I think people get mixed up with the commentary of “reducing risk” and “victim blaming”. They’re not one and the same. I think learning about crimes and giving advice to women about what to avoid is useful and not something that should be seen as negative.

> I think such statements send out subliminal messages (to young, impressionable minds) that such a woman is asking for it / it’s ok to rape her.

I think that any effect that may be occuring based of this is quickly countered by the reality they’re in. Namely society. A few comments aren’t going to counter years of gender role reinfocement that women are to be protected and valued.

> And I think that’s the point of the poster – that people need to stop making such comments because all they do is a) send these messages out and b) makes victims feel guilty.

A couple of points.

a) The poster is so vague as to be idiotic. According to the poster, any suggestion that a woman can do anything to prevent a rape is off limits. That’s nonsense. Education about how rapists operate and actions women can take to reduce their chances of being a victim is a good thing. This poster acts to stifle this dicussion.

b) Let’s say I’m robbed. A police officer says to me:

“So, we’ve taken a look around the place and we’ve found that the window the perp used wasn’t fitted correctly and it allowed him entry. You should get that fixed. Also, you may want to get a security system.”

If I had a daughter or a son (I don’t), I’d sure as hell want to know what they can do to prevent themselves from being a victim of anything.

Let’s phrase the poster in another way.

“Men should be offended when they suggest children should prevent being abudcted by strangers by suggesting:
– They do not talk to strangers.
– They do not wander far from home.
– They come in from playing outside when the street lights come on.

That line of thinking presumes that you’re incapable of control. That you are so base and uncivilized that it takes extraordinary effort fo you to walk down the street without abducting a child.”

Since you seem to be emphasizing a rational and objective view, I would like to ask you some simple questions:

What does ‘prevent’ mean? Does it mean decrease risk? Or does it mean eliminate risk altogether? I’m going with ‘eliminate’, because that’s what every dictionary I know says.

If dressing and acting conservatively prevent rape, why are women in burkhas raped?

If not going out after dark prevents rape, why are there still women raped in broad daylight?

If staying at home prevents rape, why are the majority of women raped by someone they know, often in their own homes?

Rape survivors are often treated like it’s their fault. Every time a newscaster talks about how these poor boys’ lives are ruined because of this, every time a commenter says ‘she shouldn’t have worn such a short skirt’, every time a rape victim is called a slut because of something she had no control over, countless other rape survivors hide what happened deeper inside, afraid to tell people because they are afraid they will be blamed. Believing that it is THEIR fault, that THEY caused the men to rape them. That these men wouldn’t have done it, but the women caused them to become rapists.

Every time someone says or implies that rape can be PREVENTED by doing certain things, it means that these men wouldn’t have been rapists if the women had taken certain precautions to avoid tempting them.

So when someone says that I should be offended when it is suggested that women PREVENT rape, that I should be offended because it implies that men can’t control themselves, that we are incapable of thinking with our brains when we see a short skirt, you bet I’m offended.

> If not going out after dark prevents rape, why are there still women raped in broad daylight?

> If staying at home prevents rape, why are the majority of women raped by someone they know, often in their own homes?

You’re making a mistake here. Prevention applies to an event. It does not apply to a broad effect. That is to say, there are situations where dressing and acting conservatively prevent rape and times where it will not.

Let’s think about it this way.

Jimmy is a 5 year old boy who was told by his mother not to get into a stranger’s car. Jimmy is approached by a man and offered candy if he gets in the car. Jimmy says no.

Billy is a 5 year old boy who was also told the same thing as Jimmy. Billy is approached by a man who grabs him and shoves him into his car.

Does the fact that Billy was abducted change the fact that Jimmy prevented his abduction by not getting in the car? No.

What you’re suggesting by your questioning is that for a suggesiton to prevent rape is valid, it must address all rapes at all times. I don’t think that’s reasonable, because rape is so varied that no single rule could address all cases. In fact, I’d go so far as to say it’s silly.

Please note that if this isn’t your point, I apologize for misinterpreting it. Perhaps you could rephrase.

> Rape survivors are often treated like it’s their fault.

Which is wrong. What also is wrong is the confusion that suggestions on how not to be a victim are somehow blaming the victim. It’s not. We should fight this sort of nonsense when we see it.

> Every time a newscaster talks about how these poor boys’ lives are ruined because of this, every time a commenter says ‘she shouldn’t have worn such a short skirt’, every time a rape victim is called a slut because of something she had no control over, countless other rape survivors hide what happened deeper inside, afraid to tell people because they are afraid they will be blamed. Believing that it is THEIR fault, that THEY caused the men to rape them. That these men wouldn’t have done it, but the women caused them to become rapists.

> Every time someone says or implies that rape can be PREVENTED by doing certain things, it means that these men wouldn’t have been rapists if the women had taken certain precautions to avoid tempting them.

No, that’s not what it means. It means that there are evil people in the world and that you have to sometimes take actions that are cumbersome to prevent being a victim.

For example, I don’t want to be a victim of identity theft. So I have to shred all my documents before I put out the trash. I also then pile on my organic trash on top, making a gooey and illegible mess for any would be criminals.

You take away the opportunity for the crime to occur. That prevents the crime from occuring.

> So when someone says that I should be offended when it is suggested that women PREVENT rape, that I should be offended because it implies that men can’t control themselves, that we are incapable of thinking with our brains when we see a short skirt, you bet I’m offended.

There’s a bait and switch in the poster, you just haven’t seen it yet. I’ve explained it very well above, but I’ll cut and copy it so you can read it here. I’ve also replaced rape for murder as it’s appropriate for our discussion.

===================================================

I’m going to use two groups for this example:

Group 1: Men who rape others.
Group 2: Men who do not rape.

Obviously, Group 1 + Group 2 = All men. Because either men are murderers or they are not.

Now, if I’m in Group 2, that is to say, Men who do not murder, I cannot be offended by claims made against Group 1, namely the murderers because I do not belong to that group. As I am not a murderer.

===================================================

The poster seeks to outline characteristics of rapists. Those people would be much like group 1, “Men who rape others”. But then it says that all men should be offended.

But we know that all men contain the groups “Men who rape”. and “Men who do not rape”.

Because “all men” contain a subset that are mutually exclusive from “men who rape” (those being men who do not rape), you cannot compare the two groups.

And here’s the kicker. If we grant the claims are true, that rapists are unable to control themselves (which I think is fair), it only applies to group 1, not all men. So anyone who’s not a rapist shouldn’t be offended because it doesn’t apply to them.

And if the claims are not true, then no one should be offended, because they’re not true.

Here’s something else to consider. Women do in fact rape other women. So would you agree with this poster content?

“Women should be offended when someone claims that women should prevent rape by not wearing certain things, or not going in certain places, or not acting in a certain way. That line of thinking presumes that you are incapable of control.

That you require a certain dress code maintained, that certain behaviours be employed, so that maybe today, just maybe, you won’t rape someone.

It presumes your natural state is rapist.”

If you’re intellectually honest in your position, you’ll support this statement just as much as the one targeting men. :)

What I’m hoping is that when you realize what is wrong with my example poster’s content, you’ll then realize what is wrong with the above poster’s content. (Poster as in the image at the top of the blog).

In my opinion, you are neglecting to consider the real world context this poster references, and have not fully understood the extent to which we live in a rape culture. You are blinded by your male privilege. You are parsing this poster as words and logic only instead of how it relates to and reflects what is happening in our society.

While I understand your point of view, I do not agree with it. We appear to have different definitions of ‘prevent’, and I believe that to be a large part of the problem as well.

Prevent means ‘to keep from happening’. Yes, not walking alone in a dark alley is a good way to lower your risk of being raped, but it will not necessarily prevent you from being raped.

However, it is both spoken clearly and loosely implied in various settings by various people that women can KEEP FROM BEING RAPED if they wear conservative clothing, don’t go out late, don’t go to bars, don’t flirt with men, don’t walk alone…

And that’s just not true. It may lower their risk… lowered risk of rape by strangers, which is the least common form of rape. They’re still at just as much risk of being raped by a friend, boss, co-worker, or family member. But regardless, even if we only consider stranger rape, she still won’t be able to PREVENT rape by these actions.

AND the notion that doing that will make sure she isn’t raped implies (perhaps not through formal logic, but at least informally by that extremely loud portion of our brains that operates on feelings and doesn’t care what logic says) that men can’t control themselves when women act certain ways, wear certain things…

You are free to hold your own opinion, but since you have communicated it multiple times at great length, I would appreciate it if you would simply agree to disagree and stop making the claims that your point of view is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and everyone else is wrong.

> In my opinion, you are neglecting to consider the real world context this poster references, and have not fully understood the extent to which we live in a rape culture. You are blinded by your male privilege. You are parsing this poster as words and logic only instead of how it relates to and reflects what is happening in our society.

How does this address the issues I have lodged against the poster?

> While I understand your point of view, I do not agree with it. We appear to have different definitions of ‘prevent’, and I believe that to be a large part of the problem as well.

Yes, mine is reasonable and I think yours is unreasonable, as I outline above. I was honestly hoping for a defense of your position or an offensive on mine. :(

> Prevent means ‘to keep from happening’. Yes, not walking alone in a dark alley is a good way to lower your risk of being raped, but it will not necessarily prevent you from being raped.

In the instances that a woman takes an action by not going to a certain place and that prevents a rape, it’s prevented. When the advice is followed and it doesn’t prevent the rape, it doesn’t prevent the rape.

However, just because the advice doesn’t work 100% of the time doesn’t mean that the advice doesn’t prevent specific instances from happening.

I mean, I’ve been told that I shouldn’t give my SIN out over the phone. This will prevent scams that relate to my SIN being used in a way I do not like. Would it then be your position that “that’s useless because you can be scammed other ways.”? Of course not. You are preventing yourself from becoming a victim in a specific circumstance.

> However, it is both spoken clearly and loosely implied in various settings by various people that women can KEEP FROM BEING RAPED if they wear conservative clothing, don’t go out late, don’t go to bars, don’t flirt with men, don’t walk alone…

I’m sorry, but what other people say, no matter how stupid, has no effect on whether the poster is accurate or not.

> And that’s just not true. It may lower their risk… lowered risk of rape by strangers, which is the least common form of rape. They’re still at just as much risk of being raped by a friend, boss, co-worker, or family member. But regardless, even if we only consider stranger rape, she still won’t be able to PREVENT rape by these actions.

The poster is no more true or less true based on the facts you present above.

And if the advice prevents one rape from happening, then it’s totally worth it. Wouldn’t you agree?

> You are free to hold your own opinion, but since you have communicated it multiple times at great length, I would appreciate it if you would simply agree to disagree and stop making the claims that your point of view is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and everyone else is wrong.

No, I never claimed that. You see, in a discussion about a subject, I never assume I’m right. I simply present my case and the way I see it. And of course, because it’s my argument, I do think it’s correct and I try to explain why.

However, I do read the posts and if there’s a counter to my argument, I reply “Wow, you’re right. You’ve totally changed my mind, I now adopt your method of thinking on this topic.”

However, what will change my mind is a logical and well reasoned argument that deals with the facts as outlined, not based on emotional bias and “well, we have to consider the effect the poster has.”

Of course, I also tend to get a little snooty and sarcastic when people say really silly things. But that doesn’t change the fact that I”m looking for reasonable objections. :)

====================================================

I have a legitimate question for you, and this has nothing to do with my argument.

Do you value the truth over your own personal bias?

As far as I can see, I have proven the poster is illogical. What you present me is side arguments and emotional pleas.

How do you plan on winning over anyone who even casually examines material like that if you’re not able (or willing) to defend it? Isn’t that part of the reason for a blog? To actually post something and then have a discussion about it.

See, if you want to have a feminist post and talk about the ideals and emotional effect of a poster and all that, more power to you. I don’t mind.

What I do mind is when a post is labeled…. “in Inspirational, Logic, Public Service Images, Reasoning, Reflective” and when logic and reason is discussed, it’s pushed to the side.

Perhaps a flagging system of “Dogmatic, Ra Ra for Our Side,Blood Pumping” would be more appropriate. I probably would have passed on by, as I do with other “isms” that are not claiming to be factually correct or logical.

With respect,
Rundvelt

PS: I have this rather unsettling feeling that you’re going to delete this post. I honestly hope you have more integrity than that. And this is totally not a dig, cause you’ve been very nice in letting it get this far.

PPS: I’d really like for you to logically dissect my argument. I think it’d be good for the both of us. Well, if I’m right, good for you. If you’re right, good for me. :)

I did intend to delete your post, because you keep saying the same things over and over, and I asked you nicely to leave it alone. You didn’t. However, since you asked, I will leave it. But I respectfully ask that you no longer post here.

Here’s the way it works.

1) Some people DO claim that women ‘ask for it’. They DO claim that they wouldn’t have gotten raped if they hadn’t worn that short skirt. They DO claim that a woman dressing and behaving properly WILL NOT get raped. That is the meaning of the word ‘prevent’ in this poster. How do I know that? I’ve spoken with the woman who came up with the quote.

2) This is REAL LIFE, not a philosophy project. Just because the implication is not one that can be found by formal logic does not mean the implication is not there. It means the implication is drawn by our emotional brains. Very few people are capable of divorcing their emotion from their reactions. And if someone feels something, it is real to them, regardless of what it may be to someone else. The implication IS there. It IS real. It just isn’t formed rationally. That doesn’t make it crazy, it just makes it human. Basic psychology.

3) So we now have a claim that women can keep rape from happening by not tempting men to rape them. That if they do certain things, wear certain things, act certain ways, they may cause men to lose control and rape them. Whether or not you agree, this IS how some people feel, this IS what some people say.

4) And when THOSE people, the ones who actively believe that women are at fault because they tempt men (and they DO exist), and those who defend them without understanding the implications, when those people claim that women should PREVENT rape, they are implying that MEN are not to blame for rape. THIS IS OFFENSIVE. This is saying we are lust-driven animals unable to control our baser desires.

You are no longer welcome here. You’ve said your piece. Leave it at that.

As a man who has been raped, I’m offended by a lot of assumptions. I’m offended by the assumption that ANY rape survivor is to blame for what was inflicted upon them – REGARDLESS OF THEIR GENDER. As a rape survivor, I’m also offended by the assumption that my mere gender status means I don’t understand the dynamics of sexual violence and need to be taught otherwise. I’m offended by ALL FORMS OF VICTIM-BLAMING. I’m offended by the assumptions that clothing, time of day and location are the overwhelming forms of victim-blaming and everything else survivors face is rare. Given that the majority of survivors are hurt by someone we know, the majority of victim-blaming we receive is not related to clothing, location or time of day. That’s a rape myth in itself.